Is the LDS Church really led by prophets?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I answered your CFR. The issue is, Does the LDS claim that its apostles have all seen the risen Jesus? If the answer is yes, then we should be able to find places in LDS publications where they make this claim. I can't find any such places. Therefore, the answer, based on the LDS publications I have examined is not yes. (I gave you two very good examples of such publications.) If the answer is not yes, then the answer is no (by the law of excluded middle).

Now it's your turn to refute my argument by citing references where the LDS Church does make this claim.

Imagine if you had said, "The Southern Baptist Church does not require its pastors to have received a supernatural testimony of the Holy Ghost that the Bible is the Word of God." Then to back up that statement you pointed to the lack of any indications of such a requirement in the Baptist faith and Message of 2000. That would be a pretty decent argument on your part. Then if I wanted to dispute your statement (which I wouldn't, because I am honest and candid about evangelical beliefs), I would have to provide you with some positive evidence that the SBC does require its pastors to have had such a supernatural experience. The same principle applies here: The burden of proof is on you to show that the LDS Church does require its apostles to have had visible encounters with the risen Jesus.

Sorry, but that doesn't address the CFR.

I understand why you have to avoid this CFR. You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your statement.

You made the statement, now back it up or concede that is just opinion.

Thanks.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Was Peter a friend of Jesus? How about Paul?

And again, how about you?

It was a rhetorical question.

But it is interesting that you admit that you don't meet the requirements to be able to make the claim.

I also found this of interest.

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

So, what can we conclude about Abraham's obedience?

Lets not forget.

2 Chr. 20:7 Art not thou our God, who didst drive out the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it to the seed of Abraham thy friend for ever?

Isa. 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

[Vance]

Vance,

I answered your CFR.

No, you haven't.

You can't support your assertion. PERIOD!!!

You claimed, ". . . each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles."

Now, either back it up (address the CFR) or retract it.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

1. Saying that Joseph Smith made such additions to his supposed revelations often, rather than just one time, does not address the problems I raised for the specific instance of the addition to what is now D&C 27.

2. Matthias had to fulfill the qualification of having seen Jesus alive from the dead. Furthermore, the apostles did not choose Matthias! Read it again.

3. Don't equivocate: calling the LDS apostles "witnesses of Jesus Christ" does not mean they actually saw the risen Jesus. The NT apostles all had to meet that stringent qualification.

4. If you are correct in claiming that Christ sent the LDS apostles and prophets, then you are also correct in saying that I am sinning by rejecting someone whom Christ sent. But that's a big "if," my friend. I honestly, sincerely am convinced that your apostles and prophets were not really commissioned by Jesus Christ. If I'm wrong, I would sure appreciate being shown that I am wrong. That's different from being told that I am wrong.

5. My point with regard to Alma was that the Book of Mormon does not teach as a principle that prophets must be ordained by other prophets. In fact, it doesn't even say that Alma was so ordained.

[Vance]

Vance,

Was Peter a friend of Jesus? How about Paul?

And again, how about you?

Nice red herring.

Whether Peter or Paul were Jesus' friends is irrelevant to you claimed status.

You, by your own admission, don't meet the requirements to make the claim.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I'm done arguing with you about whether I answered your CFR. I consider the treatments of apostles in Gospel Principles and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism sufficient documentation for my claim that Mormonism does not require apostles to have seen the risen Jesus.

I will ignore any further "no you haven't' histrionics from you.

No, you haven't.

You can't support your assertion. PERIOD!!!

You claimed, ". . . each apostle had to be an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. That isn't the case with your LDS apostles."

Now, either back it up (address the CFR) or retract it.

[Vance]

Rob,

NOWHERE, is the requirement that those called to the Apostleship reveal the intimate details of their calling to the world and open themselves and others to the ridicule of the wicked.

Now, you need to either support your claim, or retract it.

[zerinus]

Vance,

I answered your CFR. The issue is, Does the LDS claim that its apostles have all seen the risen Jesus? . . .

They are "especial witnesses of Jesus Christ," see above. That is what they are required to be.

Vance,

Was Peter a friend of Jesus? How about Paul?

I am sure they were.

And again, how about you?

I can

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Are you saying that apostles are required to have had visible encounters with the risen Jesus, but don't talk about those encounters so as to avoid ridicule from non-Mormons?

Rob,

NOWHERE, is the requirement that those called to the Apostleship reveal the intimate details of their calling to the world and open themselves and others to the ridicule of the wicked.

Now, you need to either support your claim, or retract it.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

1. Saying that Joseph Smith made such additions to his supposed revelations often, rather than just one time, does not address the problems I raised for the specific instance of the addition to what is now D&C 27.

It does to me.

2. Matthias had to fulfill the qualification of having seen Jesus alive from the dead.

The question was not about Matthias

[zerinus]

Vance,

Are you saying that apostles are required to have had visible encounters with the risen Jesus, but don't talk about those encounters so as to avoid ridicule from non-Mormons?

They are required to be "especial witnesses of Jesus Christ;" but they are not required to share their sacred experiences with the world.

[Vance]

Vance,

Are you saying that apostles are required to have had visible encounters with the risen Jesus, but don't talk about those encounters so as to avoid ridicule from non-Mormons?

I said what I said, read it carefully. From your response, I will take it that you agree that those called to the Apostleship aren't required to divulge the intimate details of their calling. (You know, the old casting pearls before swine thing.)

And I will repeat.

You need to either support your claim (address the CFR), or retract it.

[Vance]

Here is a classic example of the double standards used by Anti-Mormons such as Rob.

Rob has written,

There are at least two fatal problems with this explanation for the term

[Ahab]

Ahab,

In the light of Isaiah 43:10, if you tell me that someone was or became a God before Jehovah became a God, do I need to ask God if this is true or not?

I think you need to ask God to help you see the light, or understand the true interpretation, of Isaiah 43:10 as well as everything else you see and hear from anyone.

If the Bible plainly teaches one thing, and Ahab tells me another, must I run to God and ask him if Ahab is right and the Bible is wrong?

You seem to use the term "Bible" as if the Bible is exactly the same thing as God, himself. It's really not, FYI.

You also don't seem to realize that all truth is in harmony, so that if God tells you one thing, and I tell you another thing, both God and I can be right.

I will tell you this, though, if this is what you were trying to get at.

If God, our Father in heaven, plainly teaches one thing, and anyone else tries to teach you that what God has taught is false, you'll be much better off to believe what God has taught than to believe anyone else who tries to teach you that what God has taught is false.

Tell me: Did you pray to God and ask him sincerely to reveal to you whether I might be right about anything I said in this thread? How did that go?

Yes. God told me the things that you got right, while not saying much if anything about what you did not get right.

Fortunately, my salvation does not depend on getting right the ministry office of the Joshua of the Old Testament, but on getting right with God through the redemptive ministry of the Joshua (Jesus) of the New Testament.

That's pretty close to being right. Just realize that if you get right with God through the redemptive ministry of the Joshua (Jesus) of the New Testament, God through Jesus and the Holy Ghost will eventually teach you what he has taught through others who spoke and are speaking for him.

Finally, I asked God long ago to give me the wisdom to discern if Mormonism is true or not. I believe God answered that prayer.

I'm sure he did, too, even though you've now chosen to disregard what he has told you in favor of what an imposter has told you.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Your claimed example of a "double standard" from one of my articles is characteristically superficial. You are quoting only one sentence of a paragraph that details the problem, which is not ONLY the lack of the exact words "Melchizedek priesthood," but the lack of those words OR ANY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSION or of anything that would so much as suggest that anyone other than Jesus can be described as "a priest after the order of Melchizedek." By contrast, we have verses that specifically address all believers and state categorically that they are a royal priesthood because of their relationship to Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, you missed the context of the sentence you quoted. My argument was not "there is no such thing as a Melchizedek priesthood because the exact words 'Melchizedek priesthood' are not in the Bible." I was responding to the claim that the ancient church used the expression "Melchizedek priesthood" to avoid "the too frequent expression" of "the name of the Supreme Being." In response to that claim, I pointed out that the expression never occurs in the Bible and the expression "priest after the order of Melchizedek" appears only in two places in the Bible (Psalm 110 and Hebrews 5-7), and only in reference to Jesus!

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

I'm sure he did, too, even though you've now chosen to disregard what he has told you in favor of what an imposter has told you.

So, it's possible to ask God a question and have an imposter answer?

[Rob Bowman]

I said what I said, read it carefully. From your response, I will take it that you agree that those called to the Apostleship aren't required to divulge the intimate details of their calling. (You know, the old casting pearls before swine thing.)

And I will repeat.

You need to either support your claim (address the CFR), or retract it.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

You wrote:

So, it's possible to ask God a question and have an imposter answer?

Heh, yes. Are you going to act like you have never known that, until now?

Satan can't read our minds like our Father or Jesus or the Holy Ghost can, but he is pretty good (correct term?) at knowing what we are thinking, including the kinds of things we are asking our Father in heaven about, and he (or one of his cohorts) gives us input pretty much all of the time, just like our Father in heaven gives us input pretty much all of the time either personally or through one of his servants.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Heh, yes. Are you going to act like you have never known that, until now?

No, but I was interested to find out that a Mormon would admit it.

You wrote:

Satan can't read our minds like our Father or Jesus or the Holy Ghost can, but he is pretty good (correct term?) at knowing what we are thinking, including the kinds of things we are asking our Father in heaven about, and he (or one of his cohorts) gives us input pretty much all of the time, just like our Father in heaven gives us input pretty much all of the time either personally or through one of his servants.

So how do you tell the difference between what the Imposter says and what the real Holy Spirit says?

[Ahab]

They are "especial witnesses of Jesus Christ," see above. That is what they are required to be.

More particularly speaking, they are especial (or special) witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ, and it's the way they act in his name which makes them so special, as his witnesses.

[Ahab]

So how do you tell the difference between what the Imposter says and what the real Holy Spirit says?

By knowing the difference(s) between each person, which pretty much equates to the same thing as knowing the difference between good and evil.

[Ceeboo]

I demand that y'all retract about 94% of this entire thread!

Peace.

Ceeboo

[Ahab]

I demand that y'all retract about 94% of this entire thread!

Hmm. Let's see. Subtracting 94% of 396 replies would leave about 24 posts, which is less than I've posted.

Are you fine with leaving all of my posts in tact?

[Vance]

Your claimed example of a "double standard" from one of my articles is characteristically superficial. You are quoting only one sentence of a paragraph that details the problem, which is not ONLY the lack of the exact words "Melchizedek priesthood," but the lack of those words OR ANY EQUIVALENT EXPRESSION or of anything that would so much as suggest that anyone other than Jesus can be described as "a priest after the order of Melchizedek." By contrast, we have verses that specifically address all believers and state categorically that they are a royal priesthood because of their relationship to Jesus Christ.

Doubling down on the double standard.

"a priest after the order of Melchizedek" can be legitimately called a holder of the "Melchizedek priesthood". You continued denial of this fact says more about you than about the "Melchizedek priesthood"

My argument was not "there is no such thing as a Melchizedek priesthood because the exact words 'Melchizedek priesthood' are not in the Bible."

Good, because that would be a silly argument. I sense some back pedaling is about to occur.

I was responding to the claim that the ancient church used the expression "Melchizedek priesthood" to avoid "the too frequent expression" of "the name of the Supreme Being."

Well, then you are flogging a strawman. There was no claim that 'the ancient church used the expression "Melchizedek priesthood"'.

From the quote you cited, ". . . they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood". Notice that no quotes are used. No claim is being made about the exact phrasing. Also you will note that "called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood" is a accurate description of "after the order of Melchizedek".

In response to that claim, I pointed out that the expression never occurs in the Bible and the expression "priest after the order of Melchizedek" appears only in two places in the Bible (Psalm 110 and Hebrews 5-7), and only in reference to Jesus!

Again, since no such claim is being made about that particular expression, your argument falls flat on its face.

Edited to add,

You NEVER specified WHY it was a "fatal flaw" that '"Melchizedek priesthood" never occurs in any ancient literature' only that is was one. And to try to claim that it was to address a specific claim that was never actually made makes you look ridiculous.

Oh and,

"a royal priesthood" as in the priesthood of "the king of Salem" (Melchizedek) and the priesthood of "the King of the Jews" (Christ)?

[Vance]

Still waiting for Rob to address the CFR.